[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You'll have to be more specific as to what sheet you are looking at.

U.S. Defense Spending and Budget: The Mismatch Between Spending and Resources | The Heritage Foundation

2010 was the highest since WWII... more than double the budget of the late 1990s.

How can I be more specific than table 5.3? It showed all spending as a percent of the budget. In the link you posted, it shows about a quarter of the way down the page, that defense is maybe 5% of GDP (from the graph), wheras WW2 defense spending was 38%. And as a percent of the US federal budget, as I was saying, it is heading to be the lowest percent ever.

Like jobs, food, roads, and health?

Sure. Do you really need roads, if North Korea has enslaved you?

What threat to the US is North Korea and how, exactly, have US bases in Okinawa and S.Korea affected that threat?

Also: How is this threat different and worse than Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, etc?

Shall we draft the entire adult population of the US and spend the entore GDP having bases at every potential threat? When we do, shall we raise taxes to 80%, or shall we simply print more money every year? Assuming you don't support that: how is Korea special?

I have no clue how close North Korea could actually be to nuclear abilities, but that is a rather scary thought, with such outspoken leadership.

The other countries are less vocal? And appear far less organized, not to mention mysterious. In the cold war, everyone thought the other side would blow them up. Is it really necessary to chance it?

Of course not. But that is because the US already has the most powerful army in the world. And to keep such a powerful army, it is understood that a certain amount of money must be spent each year (or the next administration will be playing catch up in spending as your link points out). North Korea aside, I'm saying that defense is not the trillion dollar budget increase. Find out whats been added to create such large deficits, and get rid of that. Americans have done without it long enough, and can continue to manage.

[tlj009]

The largest drains of the federal budget are defense, entitlement (social security, medicare, and medicade, etc), and tax incentives.

I am just arguing about the terminology here. Tax breaks are not necessarily a "drain" on the budget. If my income is $60,000/year, there isn't a drain on my budget because I don't make $100,000/year. The drain comes from expenses, not lack of income. So while additional income may help balance the budget, it deserves a separate category from other "drains".

Now given the fact that social security is taxed seperately; I'm opposed to simply writing off our debt to it as part of the national budget (it may need its own budget cuts however); but beyond that: why are we so focused on the 12% of the economy that is "discretionary spending"? Even if we removed *all* discretionary spending (no more roads BTW), that would not fix the deficit.

I don't know what charts that you are using. According to wiki, "discretionary spending" was around 38% in 2010. According to the chart, "mandatory spending" decreased by 20.1% and "discretionary spending" increased by 13.1% from the previous year.

2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, I am all for decreasing military spending. I am all for decreasing the number of government jobs as a whole too. Private sector jobs need to increase instead.

[Jfool]

Eliminate the Dept of Education... save $70 billion.

I agree the jobs (and money) "goes somewhere". The beauty of the free market is that over time these are absorbed, although it is a painful process.

Alos grant that Defense spending can be carefully reduced. But I would ask the DOD to partner in it and not leave it to congress.

We can not afford social security in the long term. We need to grow a backbone and reform it.

I also believe if we look for cuts everywhere it will add up. We can't over simplify it to just a handful of major cuts.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Napoleon17

And then we find out that Obama "cut" funds from Medicare, and conveineintly forgot to tell us that they're just going to spend the money on Obamacare! What the heck?

Who lied to whom over what is not terribly germain to the question of what we *should* do; but the recollection *I* have of this topic was that "part of the healthcare reform act would be paid for by cuts to medicade" or something of the like.

As I said earlier: I think healthcare should be segregated out like social security is.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

How can I be more specific than table 5.3? It showed all spending as a percent of the budget. In the link you posted, it shows about a quarter of the way down the page, that defense is maybe 5% of GDP (from the graph), wheras WW2 defense spending was 38%. And as a percent of the US federal budget, as I was saying, it is heading to be the lowest percent ever.

I assume you mean "in 2015"... and likely "not counting the wars", which I believe do not show up on those charts (as they are "emergency spending").

I'm discussing 2010 and 2011: which are up markedly from 2000.

Sure. Do you really need roads, if North Korea has enslaved you?

Please describe the scenereo in which the US lacking bases in S.Korea and Okinawa realistically results in my enslavement.

I have no clue how close North Korea could actually be to nuclear abilities, but that is a rather scary thought, with such outspoken leadership.

Of course it is. Now tell me how bases in S.Korea and Okinawa change something related to the US.

The other countries are less vocal? And appear far less organized, not to mention mysterious. In the cold war, everyone thought the other side would blow them up. Is it really necessary to chance it?

Iran is less vocal? Pakistan is less vocal? I'm not aware of N.Korea burning American flags in the streets, nor of a single attack on American soil from people operating in N.Korea.

Of course not. But that is because the US already has the most powerful army in the world. And to keep such a powerful army, it is understood that a certain amount of money must be spent each year (or the next administration will be playing catch up in spending as your link points out).

Sure. How about we spend the same as China: which has a larger army, has borders with potentially hostile countries, and has 4x our population?

Or is China on the verge of being enslaved by N.Korea (who is actually on their border) for a lack of military spending?

If you can't be serious on this (or funny), please don't post.

[Napoleon17]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Who lied to whom over what is not terribly germain to the question of what we *should* do; but the recollection *I* have of this topic was that "part of the healthcare reform act would be paid for by cuts to medicade" or something of the like.

As I said earlier: I think healthcare should be segregated out like social security is.

Maybe it's not, but I think that when we as a nation are having a discussion about what to cut, how to cut, where to cut, how much to cut, etc, we should at least expect an honest effort out of the administration, not budget gimmicks that are portrayed as deficit reduction, when really they are not reducing the deficit at all. I don't think we're going to make any progress if this type of game playing is tolerated, which is why I think a government shutdown is a real potential.

As far as what we should do, I think a good first step would be the creation of a deficit commission to review our problems and come up with solutions. Oh, wait... that's already been done and no one is even listening to what they had to say. Another example of how this administration is just playing games and being intellectually dishonest. But in all seriousness, I think what we *should* do is take drastic steps to cut cut cut for a period of time, and when the economy is booming again, we can expand again. Temporary, drastic cuts in discretionary spending, along with addressing the huge problems (i.e. social security, medicare, etc) would do wonders for our country in the long run.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I am just arguing about the terminology here. Tax breaks are not necessarily a "drain" on the budget. If my income is $60,000/year, there isn't a drain on my budget because I don't make $100,000/year. The drain comes from expenses, not lack of income. So while additional income may help balance the budget, it deserves a separate category from other "drains".

For example: the tax deduction for mortguage interest: which exists as a stimulus to encourage the purchase of houses, is seen by economists as an "expense".

"Temporary tax cuts", such as the "Bush Era tax Cuts" are oft classed similarly.

I don't know what charts that you are using. According to wiki, "discretionary spending" was around 38% in 2010. According to the chart, "mandatory spending" decreased by 20.1% and "discretionary spending" increased by 13.1% from the previous year.

2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sorry for the confusion. I have segregated military spending out from "discretionary spending".

That cuts the number in half... yes: 19%>13%, but I think that is because of a difference in budget years being looked at.

But, I am all for decreasing military spending. I am all for decreasing the number of government jobs as a whole too. Private sector jobs need to increase instead.

Ok. How the private sector invents new jobs would seem to be a seperate discussion.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

Eliminate the Dept of Education... save $70 billion.

I am less interested in discussing what part of the discretionary budget we think should be cut (no schools, really? I mean you just eliminated literacy for the bulk of the population, and most colleges will go belly-up.) than I am in the *other* areas of government: defense and entitlement.

Alos grant that Defense spending can be carefully reduced. But I would ask the DOD to partner in it and not leave it to congress.

That's not saying anything at all.

Can I close the bases in Okinawa, Germany, and S.Korea (and Quatar, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia once I get my troops out of Iraq)? Can I cut in half the number of super-carriers? Can I halve the nuclear stockpile? Cancel the B2?

We can not afford social security in the long term. We need to grow a backbone and reform it.

Social Security is actually self-sufficient. The only cash flow problem is that ZERO of the supplimental dollars collected since the 1980s specifically for social security have been paid to social security.

That said: Social security is taxed seperately and not properly part of the general budget. We can (and liiely should) reform it; but that should have NO EFFECT on the national budget. It should, instead, lower our Social Security tax.

I also believe if we look for cuts everywhere it will add up. We can't over simplify it to just a handful of major cuts.

Cut 100% of discretionary spending and we are still in deficit.

I must utterly disagree with you. When your mortguage is 120% of your income: you look at changing houses, not switching from name-brand to generic milk.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Napoleon17

As far as what we should do, I think a good first step would be the creation of a deficit commission to review our problems and come up with solutions. Oh, wait... that's already been done and no one is even listening to what they had to say. Another example of how this administration is just playing games and being intellectually dishonest. But in all seriousness, I think what we *should* do is take drastic steps to cut cut cut for a period of time, and when the economy is booming again, we can expand again. Temporary, drastic cuts in discretionary spending, along with addressing the huge problems (i.e. social security, medicare, etc) would do wonders for our country in the long run.

You are back in arguing about politicians. What would *you* do?

I see "discretionary spending" again. OK. You remove all of it. There are no more bridge inspections, no more testing food for safety, no more FBI, no more Federal Martial service, no more CIA, no more national firefighting service, no more federal prisons, no more TSA nor air marshal service, no more supervision nor medication for indigents with psycological problems, no more federal healthcare for babies, no more school lunches for starving 6-year-olds, no more FEMA, no more CDC, no more interstate system (well, no repairs: It's still there until it collapses)... it's all gone.

You still have a deficit of about $900B. What will you cut next?

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I assume you mean "in 2015"... and likely "not counting the wars", which I believe do not show up on those charts (as they are "emergency spending").

I'm discussing 2010 and 2011: which are up markedly from 2000.

I have no idea why you would assume that I use numbers from other years... From the site that you posted, it stated that the percent of gdp in 2010 was 4.9%. I actually rounded it up! The various charts all show noticeable increases for wartime, although I am sure there is extra emergency spending that may not be listed there (for the benefit of the doubt). Though it seems that is entirely another matter from what you and I were talking about, since we were not discussing the topic of how much should be spent in wartime, but rather the year to year defense budget.

Please describe the scenereo in which the US lacking bases in S.Korea and Okinawa realistically results in my enslavement.

Of course it is. Now tell me how bases in S.Korea and Okinawa change something related to the US.

Iran is less vocal? Pakistan is less vocal? I'm not aware of N.Korea burning American flags in the streets, nor of a single attack on American soil from people operating in N.Korea.

Sure. How about we spend the same as China: which has a larger army, has borders with potentially hostile countries, and has 4x our population?

Or is China on the verge of being enslaved by N.Korea (who is actually on their border) for a lack of military spending?

If you can't be serious on this (or funny), please don't post.

Since I'm clearly not going to get through on this point, although I mainly think you are just being silly, and I of course was being silly in return, perhaps we can move this a different direction. This was originally a reply to your idea to close 2 bases. Could you perhaps tell us how much money that would save?

[Jfool]

Some of the EPA $10.5 billion could be trimmed, for sure. I am not anti-evnironmental, but their budget only rises as our environment becomes more healthy.

TARP, Stimulus, CFK ...

I do get tired of typing these things repeatedly.

Some of the small (and not so small) potential cuts could be seen here.

Although it is outdated, this kind of news is what generates the outrage among taxpayers. We don't need to sacrifice security nor see our poorest starve in order to balance the budget.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I am less interested in discussing what part of the discretionary budget we think should be cut (no schools, really? I mean you just eliminated literacy for the bulk of the population, and most colleges will go belly-up.) than I am in the *other* areas of government: defense and entitlement.

Really? Were we illiterate prior to Jimmy Carter? Our universities were in bankruptcy?

[Napoleon17]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You are back in arguing about politicians. What would *you* do?

I see "discretionary spending" again. OK. You remove all of it. There are no more bridge inspections, no more testing food for safety, no more FBI, no more Federal Martial service, no more CIA, no more national firefighting service, no more federal prisons, no more TSA nor air marshal service, no more supervision nor medication for indigents with psycological problems, no more federal healthcare for babies, no more school lunches for starving 6-year-olds, no more FEMA, no more CDC, no more interstate system (well, no repairs: It's still there until it collapses)... it's all gone.

You still have a deficit of about $900B. What will you cut next?

I said in my post, social security and Medicaid. Those are the biggest portion of our budget. I believe the deficit commision had some pretty drastic recommendations concerning these two issues, and you are right, all we are left arguing about discretionary spending, which is not going to make a real dent.

But, I would also argue that just because cutting discretionary spending in the short term will not make a huge dent does not mean we should not do it. That type of reasoning has been going on for far too long. "'oh, it's only 34 billion dollars, it's not going to make a difference...". All these rationalizations add up, and do not make any sense when we are broke. Let's cut social security, raise the retirment age, cut medicare, cut short term discretionary spending, cut defense spending (as Ron Paul says "stop being the policemen of the world"), etc. Cut cut cut, but the big stuff is social security and medicare. Like I said, all of this could be accomplished if we just listened to the deficit commission.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Social Security is actually self-sufficient. The only cash flow problem is that ZERO of the supplimental dollars collected since the 1980s specifically for social security have been paid to social security.

That said: Social security is taxed seperately and not properly part of the general budget. We can (and liiely should) reform it; but that should have NO EFFECT on the national budget. It should, instead, lower our Social Security tax.

You seem to be saying SS is seperate, and not part of the problem. But it looks like you began by saying they are not really separate. Which is true. The government is borrowing trillions against it.

Also, by saying it is not part of the problem, you take away the potential that by reforming SS and lowering payroll taxes, we might have room in our personal finances to pay other taxes, or simply return more to the individual.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

I have no idea why you would assume that I use numbers from other years... From the site that you posted, it stated that the percent of gdp in 2010 was 4.9%. I actually rounded it up! The various charts all show noticeable increases for wartime, although I am sure there is extra emergency spending that may not be listed there (for the benefit of the doubt). Though it seems that is entirely another matter from what you and I were talking about, since we were not discussing the topic of how much should be spent in wartime, but rather the year to year defense budget.

I assumed that you were using 2015 because.

A. The chart ended at 2015
B. The spending *rose* steadily from 2000 to 2010, which was not consistant with your statement it was down.
C. The projected spending does go down from 2011 to 2015, which was consistant with your statement.
D. The 2015 projected was "the lowest in years", which was also consistant.

Since I'm clearly not going to get through on this point, although I mainly think you are just being silly, and I of course was being silly in return, perhaps we can move this a different direction. This was originally a reply to your idea to close 2 bases. Could you perhaps tell us how much money that would save?

Actually: it was "reduce military spending" with *examples* including two bases.

And I'm not sure. There are more than 50,000 US troops in Japan, and a similar number in S.Korea. The cost of *relocating* the Okinawa base alone is $10billion (Okinawa's voters set to test Japanese-US relations | World news | The Guardian)

But no: I am not saying that closing the bases in Korea, Japan, Quatar, Germany, and Iraq would save $1.5 Trillion... but it's a very good start.